What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?

You might find Judge Jones's opinion enlightening about why this is a terrible argument.

Quote

ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extentevolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). Thisargument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed“contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's tosupport “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogyof the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in supportof creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the twomodel approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof insupport of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not findthis false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justifycreation science two decades ago.ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative argumentsagainst evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreduciblycomplex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural,Case 44-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 71 of 139

72mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73(Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)). However, we believe that arguments against evolutionare not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just becausescientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean thatthey cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. (2:36-37 (Miller)).As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”(17:45 (Padian)). To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padianprovided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanationsexist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations havebeen identified in the intervening years. It also bears mentioning that as Dr. Millerstated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does notundermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fullyunderstood. (3:102 (Miller)).

1. There are many mutually exclusive models of creation. Biblical creationism alone includes geocentrism, young-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, and more. And then there are hundreds of very different varieties of creation from other religions and cultures. Some of the harshest criticism of creation models comes from creationists who believe other models.

2. Many noncreationist alternatives to Darwinian evolution, or significant parts of it, are possible and have received serious attention in the past. These include, among others, * orthogenesis * neo-Lamarckianism * process structuralism * saltationism (See Wilkins 1998 below for elaboration.)

3. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They coexist in models such as theistic evolution.